MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3179167405 · doi:10.1007/s40831-021-00394-8

Estimation of Mercury Losses and Gold Production by Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining (ASGM)

2021· article· en· W3179167405 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Metallurgy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersChiba UniversityUniversity of TokyoEnvironmental Restoration and Conservation Agency
KeywordsGold miningMercury (programming language)Gold extractionElemental mercuryEnvironmental scienceGold cyanidationLatin AmericansEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental protectionChemistryPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) utilizes mercury (Hg) for the extraction of gold (Au) and is responsible for the largest anthropogenic source of emissions and releases of Hg to the environment. Previous estimates of Hg use in ASGM have varied widely. In this effort, Hg losses in ASGM were derived from the difference between estimates of total Au production and the production reported by conventional gold mining. On the basis of this result, the average ratio of Hg lost to Au produced in ASGM was estimated to be 1.96 in Africa, 4.63 in Latin America, and 1.23 in Asia. The difference among regions can be attributed to the amalgamation procedure used by the miners, in which whole-ore amalgamation is predominant in Latin America and Asia. The obtained estimated ratio of Hg lost :Au produced suggested the possibility to detect either Au or Hg smuggling from one country to another. On the other hand, the importance of considering cyanidation in ASGM was also suggested. Graphical Abstract

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.391
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it